PAC Resources

Program Advisory Committee (PAC)

PAC 24 CALL FOR PROPOSALS

February 27, 2003

Dear Jefferson Lab User,

The Jefferson Laboratory Program Advisory Committee (PAC 24) will consider new proposals, updates,
and letters-of-intent during the week that begins June 16, 2003. Contrary to tradition, that meeting
will start on Monday, June 16 and continue as long as necessary to review all proposals submitted,
rather than ending on Friday and starting as early in the week as necessary to hear all proposals.
This change was made to mesh the meeting optimally with the annual user's group meeting that will
take place June 11-13. Proposals for PAC 24 are due at Jefferson Lab by the close of business on
Monday, April 28, 2003. PAC 24 will also review the schedule for experiments in the three halls.
As is the established tradition, the JLab Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will make comments on
the technical viability of the proposals and provide these comments to the spokespersons and the PAC
prior to the meeting. As always, proposals will be judged on the quality of the physics, technical
feasibility, and the ability of the group to carry out the proposed measurements.

In considering beamtime allocations for PAC24, we note that the backlog of approved experiments at
Jefferson Lab remains large (over 4 years in Halls A and C, and close to 3 years in Hall B) for our
present schedule and operating efficiency. In Halls A and C, where the backlog is above the targeted
value of ~3 years, the PAC will continue to receive guidance that the basic beam time allocation
(exclusive of proposals up for jeopardy review) will be that no more than 2/3 of the equilibrium
level of beam time be recommended for approval). This will keep the backlog in these halls from
increasing due to new proposals. In Hall B the backlog has reached the equilibrium goal, so the beam
time allocation given the PAC will be the equilibrium level of beam time. (The ideal backlog would
"ramp" between 3½ years just after a PAC meeting down to 3 years just before the following PAC meeting
[6 months later], as the program progresses).

In Halls A and B our current level of operations corresponds to about three months of running per hall
in each six month period, or 1½ months of 100% efficient operation; therefore the nominal PAC allocation
will be 30 days in Hall A (2/3 of the equilibrium level) and 45 days (the nominal equilibrium level) in
Hall B. In Hall C we typically run less (~35 PAC days during each six month period) due to the setup
times associated with major installation experiments; there the PAC allocation will be 25 days (2/3 of
the equilibrium allocation of 35 days).

In all cases, this guidance will not be so rigid as to preclude PAC consideration and recommendation of
important new experiments and/or programs that cannot be accommodated within the nominal beam time limits,
but any such exceptions will have to present a compelling scientific case.

Jeopardy

The laboratory has a three-year Jeopardy Rule that was devised both to reduce the beamtime backlog and to
ensure that the ratings of all approved experiments continue to accurately reflect their scientific priority.
Jeopardy begins three years after a proposal is approved. Previously approved experiments that have not yet
been run or scheduled must return to the PAC for a review of their status. The jeopardy review recognizes
the fact that the scientific world doesn't stand still: theoretical developments and experiments elsewhere
can affect the scientific interest in experiments here, and therefore their priority. It reinforces our
goal of always identifying and running the best possible science program. Jeopardy also provides a fair
and equitable mechanism to reduce the backlog of approved experiments to about three years, as recommended
by the Users Group Board of Directors, the PAC, and the laboratory's Science and Technology Review Committee.
All PACs consider both new proposals and resubmitted "jeopardy" proposals on an equal footing.

In preparing for a jeopardy review, approved proposals for single experiments can submit either a revised,
complete proposal, or a brief update to the approved proposal. If you are submitting a revised, complete
proposal, it must conform to the standard requirements for new proposals to the PAC (see below). An
update must:

indicate clearly your desire for the experiment to remain approved;

update as appropriate, the scientific case for your experiment;

review the status of (and update, as appropriate) the membership of the collaboration;

indicate the technical readiness of the experiment; and

provide, if they are not already available, an up-to-date set of all of the documents that are now a
standard part of new proposal submissions, including a:

"standard" cover sheet, identifying all related proposals,

Lab Resources Requirements List,

Hazard Identification Checklist,

Beam Time and Requirements List, and

Computing Requirements List

If you are submitting an update and want the User/International Liaison Office to attach a copy of the
original proposal to the material that is submitted to the PAC for review, please indicate so clearly in
your submission.

For run groups in Hall B involving many experiments, the jeopardy update and review may (at the discretion
of the spokespersons) be simplified to include only three main items:

an overview report on the status of the data taken by the run group, the analysis to date, and
highlights of the accomplishments of the run group

a brief summary (in roughly the format and style of the lab's annual report) of the status of each
experiment in the run group

a discussion of the importance of the remaining beamtime for the group to achieve its physics goals

Starting with PAC23 (and therefore for this PAC as well) all time associated with experiments up for
jeopardy review in a hall will be included in the PAC's time allocation for that hall. Therefore, the total
beamtime allocation given to PAC 24 for a hall will be equal to the "basic allocation" identified above
(which depends on how close to equilibrium the backlog is in the hall) plus all of the sum of the previously
approved time for experiments undergoing jeopardy review. Conditionally approved experiments will be
included in the jeopardy sum. For purposes of assigning the PAC beamtime allocation we consider two cases
for conditionally approved experiments: if the PAC assigned beamtime to a conditionally approved experiment,
that allocation will be used; if the PAC has not yet allocated beamtime, a conditionally approved experiment
will be assigned a beamtime of 22 days for purposes of this calculation (the average for all approved
experiments). In the future, if the backlog in a hall falls below the backlog target, then we will augment
that hall's PAC allocation by half the number of days the backlog is below the target.

We continue to work hard to improve the accelerator and hall operating availabilities in order to provide
more useful beam time each year. This is one of the primary goals of both the Accelerator Operations group
and the hall groups. We have requested incremental funding from DOE in support of this effort, and we have
also asked DOE for the additional funding necessary to increase accelerator operations so that we can deliver
more physics each year. Discussions on these issues are ongoing.

GUIDELINES FOR NEW PROPOSALS, UPDATES, AND LETTERS-OF-INTENT

New Proposals

New proposals requiring beam energies up to 6 GeV will be reviewed by PAC 24. It is highly recommended that
you consider the following when preparing your proposal:

Be careful to submit a complete package that can stand alone. Do not assume that the PAC is aware of
information contained in previous proposals, technical notes, and letters of intent. If this information is
important background for your proposal, be sure that you include it in the proposal, for example as an
appendix.

Give justification for the uncertainty of the final results. Give realistic estimates of uncertainties
in resolution, absolute momentum and angle calibrations, random coincidences rates, etc. and indicate how
these impact the final results.

Be sure to include a detailed table showing how you calculated the number of days requested. Since run
time is a very scarce resource, the PAC reviews very carefully the details of the request, makes its own
calculation, and allocates the time accordingly. Therefore it is essential to give a full and detailed
justification of your request.

Include experimental details and simulations. Complex and challenging experiments often require
extensive justification and simulation calculations. Requests for large commitments of Laboratory resources
require a more detailed justification than more straightforward projects. Discussions of yield, backgrounds,
and projected statistical and systematic errors, are essential elements in the justification. To support
these, it is important to give the results of simulation calculations that should be the basis of the
experimental design. This is an essential component of the package required in order to get such proposals
approved.

Indicate how the project relates to other approved proposals. The PAC and the Laboratory have
specifically asked proponents of new proposals to clearly state how their experimental goals are addressed
by other approved experiments at the Laboratory. As stated in earlier PAC reports, failure to pay sufficient
attention to this charge can result in the PAC not considering the new proposal until the information is
provided.

Experiments with Similar Physics Goals

On your proposal cover sheet indicate any existing approved, conditionally approved, or deferred experiments
that have physics goals similar to those in your proposal. In the text of your proposal, compare and contrast
your proposal with respect to these proposals and experiments already considered or under consideration by
previous PACs. Note that both one-page summaries and the full text for most proposals are available on-line
at http://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/experiments/. You
may also contact User/International Liaison (see below) for copies of proposals.

The spokespersons for the experiments and proposals you have listed on your proposal cover sheet will receive
copies of your proposal prior to the PAC meeting. They will be allowed to submit written comments that will
then be passed on to the PAC with a copy provided to you. If you fail to identify a previously approved
proposal with similar physics goals, the spokesperson for the previously approved proposal may request that
final approval of your proposal be contingent on review by a subsequent PAC of the issues they want raised.
If laboratory management agrees that the request has merit, the final approval of your proposal will be
deferred until the following PAC has reviewed the situation.

The beam time request should be provided in some detail using the standard forms identified below. Do not
request any contingency time as the scheduling process includes this time. The beam requirements and time
request should include all of the time for the following activities: setup & installation; alignment;
calibration; check out and testing without beam; commissioning with beam; physics measurements (list all
currents, energies, targets target and experimental apparatus configuration changes, and [for Halls A and C]
spectrometer angle changes); and decommissioning.

Updates

If your collaboration has an approved experiment, a conditionally approved experiment, or a deferred proposal
and you would like to modify the physics goals, significantly change your running conditions, receive
reconsideration of your scientific rating, or achieve full approval for a conditionally approved or deferred
experiment, please submit an update. When an update is submitted, the PAC allocation for the relevant hall
will be increased by either the full previously-approved beam time for the experiment requesting the change
(in Hall B) or by two-thirds (2/3) of the previously-approved beam time for the experiment requesting the
change (in Halls A and C), and then the update request will be considered on an equal footing with all new
proposals and all jeopardy proposals submitted to that PAC. That is to say, in submitting an update requesting
a change in a previously approved experiment, all of the previously approved beam time will be at risk. Note
that this risk may be avoided by submitting a new proposal requesting time for additional physics measurements
beyond those in the previously approved experiment, but the PAC review of the new proposal will have no effect
on the PAC rating of the previously approved experiment. Note also that the PAC may or may not choose to hear
an oral presentation for updates depending on the scope of the proposed changes. The PAC beamtime allocation
for cases involving update proposals will be treated in the same manner as is the case for jeopardy proposals.

Deferred Experiments

Deferred experiments must be updated within one year or they will be removed from future consideration.

Withdrawn Proposals

A category of "withdrawn" has been established for proposals that were approved by a previous PAC but haven't
been run within three years of approval and whose authors chose to withdraw the proposal rather than defend
it at a jeopardy review. Withdrawn proposals shall be considered part of the public domain, and by withdrawing
the proposal the authors have given up any "intellectual property rights" they have to the physics it covers.
Any interested party, including the original authors may submit a new proposal covering the same physics to a
future PAC.

Rejected Proposals

A proposal based on a previously rejected proposal is considered a `new' proposal. Further, this `new' proposal
must include substantive changes that fully address the issues raised by the PAC that rejected it for it to be
considered by the new PAC.

Letters-of-Intent

Letters-of-intent may be submitted to solicit the evaluation by the PAC of a new line of research before
investing the large effort required to prepare a full proposal. In general, the letters-of-intent will involve
either a major new experimental apparatus or extension of present beam properties. Letters-of-intent will be
made public after receiving PAC appraisal in the same manner as full proposals. This means that the research
program contained in them would enter the public domain; therefore, the letters-of-intent mechanism cannot be
viewed as a means of "staking out territory." Rather, it provides experimenters with feedback at an early
stage on the PAC's views on the scientific and technical merit of an idea that the experimenters intend to
develop into a full proposal.

Due Date: New Proposals, Updates, and Letters-of-Intent

Proposals, Updates, and Letters-of-Intent for PAC 24 are due at the JLab User/International Liaison office by
close of business Monday, April 28, 2003.

Procedures for experiments are provided at http://www.jlab.org/user_resources/PFX/. The procedures include
the submission and re-submission of proposals, the PAC's scientific ratings and recommendations of Approval,
Conditional Approval, Deferral or rejection, the Directors award of beam-time, the experiment preparation and
scheduling processes, the associated Environment, Health and Safety reviews, the running of the experiments,
the allocation of computational resources, and the publication of results including presentations at
conferences.

Reference Material Hard Copies

If you would like any of the materials on the Web sent to you, please contact User/International Liaison via
phone (757-269-7687), fax (757-269-7003) or e-mail (users@jlab.org).